Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 14 December 2016 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.

For Application pursuant to the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act

Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Dale Graham Parkinson and Jodie Lynn Parkinson

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Edwin Rejman and anor
v
Gregory Sheedy and ors

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

BURNIE

No List for Burnie.

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act against Dale Graham Parkinson and Jodie Lynn Parkinson. The Director sought to confiscate profits obtained through criminal conduct. The case was heard in Court 2 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice Tennent.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation and application of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act. The central question was whether the profits claimed by the Director were indeed derived from criminal conduct, and if so, whether the Director had fulfilled the necessary legal requirements to seek confiscation of these profits. The court had to determine the extent of the profits attributable to criminal activity and assess the evidence provided to substantiate the claims.

Justice Tennent examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court found that the Director had adequately demonstrated that the profits were derived from criminal activity and that the legal criteria for confiscation were met. Consequently, Justice Tennent ruled in favour of the Director, ordering the confiscation of the specified profits. The detailed findings and reasoning were documented in the court’s written reasons, providing clarity on the basis for the decision.

The final orders mandated that the profits identified as derived from criminal activity be confiscated and handed over to the state, thereby ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 14 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established